USING MOTIVATIONAL INTERVIEWING TO IMPROVE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE WITH

USING MOTIVATIONAL INTERVIEWING TO IMPROVE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE WITH AT-RISK STUDENTS Dawn De. Biase, LICSW Assistant Dean, College of Arts and Sciences Fairfield University ddebiase 1@fairfield. edu 203. 254. 4000 x 2227 Dawn De. Biase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

Pre-Workshop Exercise The statements below are those that a student may make during a 1: 1 meeting. Please write down the very next thing you would say to the student. (No right or wrong answers ~ Be spontaneous!) 1. “ 8 a. m. ? That English class is way too early. Can’t wake up for that one…. ” 2. “It’s ridiculous that I ‘have to’ meet with you to talk about my grades. ” Dawn De. Biase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

References/Resources ü William Miller, Ph. D. & Stephen Rollnick, Ph. D. (Motivational Interviewing, 2002, 2 nd ed. ) ü ü ü James Prochaska, Ph. D. & Carlo Di. Clemente, Ph. D. Carl Rogers, Ph. D. Kathleen Sciacca, M. A. Bill Matulich, Ph. D. David Rosengren, Ph. D. Thomas Gordon, Ph. D. Dawn De. Biase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

WHAT IS MOTIVATIONAL INTERVIEWING (M. I. )? Motivational Interviewing is a collaborative, person-centered form of guiding to elicit and strengthen motivation for change. Miller and Rollnick, 2009 Dawn De. Biase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

“SPIRIT” of M. I. (Miller and Rollnick, 2002) MOTIVATIONAL INTERVIEWING TRADITIONAL ADDICTION TX üCollaboration üEvocation üAutonomy üConfrontation üEducation üAuthority Dawn De. Biase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

BREADTH/SCOPE OF M. I. Empirical support for M. I. across problem behaviors üAddictions/Drugs/Gambling üMental Health üWellness/Health (i. e. : smoking cessation) üCorrections/Mandated Clients Dawn De. Biase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

BREADTH/SCOPE OF M. I. • So……why not use Motivational Interviewing with “non-clinical” populations (i. e. : College Students on Academic Probation)? • Guess # published journal articles citing research? Ø “M. I. , Academic Self-Efficacy, and Probationary Students” (R. Pettay & J. Hughey, Kansas State U. , Oct. 2010, NACADA) Dawn De. Biase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

THEORETICAL PRINCIPLES 1. Reactance (Brehm & Brehm, 1981) Perception of loss of personal freedom predictably increases attractiveness and frequency of “problem” behavior 2. “Righting Reflex” (Miller & Rollnick, 2002) “Helping” professionals are inclined to “set things right” Paradoxical Result = Student retains behavior Dawn De. Biase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

Transtheoretical Model (Prochaska & Di. Clemente) Dawn De. Biase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

BEHAVIOR CHANGE STAGES /CHARACTERISTICS STAGE Pre-Contemplation CHARACTERISTICS Student does not intend to change behavior Contemplation Student may change behavior (Ambivalent) Preparation Student intends to change in near future Action Student has incorporated new behavior Maintenance Student is consistent with Dawn De. Biase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to behavior/Unlikely be replicated or disseminated without to express permission. revert

FOUR M. I. PRINCIPLES 1. EXPRESS EMPATHY 2. DEVELOP DISCREPANCY 3. ROLL WITH RESISTANCE 4. SUPPORT SELF-EFFICACY Dawn De. Biase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

1. EXPRESS EMPATHY Research Supports: • Empathic counseling style correlates with client success • Confrontational style correlates with client drop out and poorer outcomes Empathy Conveying acceptance of “where student is at” Empathy Sympathy/Overidentification Dawn De. Biase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

1. EXPRESS EMPATHY • Reflective Listening = Operational Definition – We want to clarify and amplify student’s own experience and meaning, without imposing our own opinions/thoughts (Rogers’ "Accurate Empathy”) – Doesn’t mean we agree with student! – We are simply indicating that the student has been heard and understood ~ That’s all! Dawn De. Biase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

REFLECTIVE LISTENING • Reflections are statements (not questions) • Inflection turns downward (not upward, as in asking a question) • Uses “you” as a lead-in: – “What I hear you saying is…. . ” – “It sounds like you’re……. ” – “You’re …………” Dawn De. Biase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

LEVELS OF REFLECTION SIMPLE REFLECTION: Repeating/Rephrasing Student: “I hate Calculus. ” Advisor: “You hate Calculus. ”“Math isn’t your thing. ” COMPLEX REFLECTION: Goes beyond actual words; Infers meaning; Tests hypotheses Student: “ 20 hours/study a week? No way!” Advisor: “You think that this much study isn’t necessary for you. You can do well with less time. ” Dawn De. Biase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

2. DEVELOP DISCREPANCY • Usually a disconnect between student’s goals/values (i. e. graduation, getting a job, staying in school) and behavior (i. e. skipping class, procrastination) • Our job is to present reality in a way that invites our students to examine “both sides” of a situation • Our students (not us) should present argument for change Dawn De. Biase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

3. ROLL WITH RESISTANCE • Acknowledge (even respect) student’s ambivalence (feeling two ways) or outright reluctance to change • Arguments are counterproductive • Resistance is a signal to change strategies – “skidding on ice” analogy • Student is primary resource in finding answers and proposing solutions Dawn De. Biase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

4. SUPPORT SELF-EFFICACY • Self-Efficacy = Student’s belief in his/her ability to succeed • Research suggests counselor’s expectations and beliefs powerfully influence client outcome • Student needs to want, and believe in, the possibility of change • “If you wish, I can help you. ” Dawn De. Biase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

CORRELATIONAL RESEARCH STUDY (2010 -2011 Academic Year) • Academic Probation = 32 students Sophomores < 1. 9 cumulative GPA Juniors/Seniors < 2. 0 cumulative GPA • Outreach = 2 e-mails, 1 cell phone call • 66% response rate (21 students) Average # meetings = 2 • Intervention = 1)Academic Self-Assessment 2) M. I. Consistent (varied) Dawn De. Biase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

RESEARCH STUDY “PARTICIPANTS” (21) • Off A. P. = 52% “NON PARTICIPANTS” (11) • Off A. P. = 28% • Continued A. P. = 24% • Continued A. P. = 36% • Dismissal = 24% Total =100% 36% Total =100% Dawn De. Biase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

RESEARCH STUDY • Among 21 participating students, significant correlation (r =. 368, p <. 05) between: ü# of meetings (between 1 -6) üResolution (Off A. P. , Cont. A. P. , Dismissal) • More frequent meetings associated with better academic outcomes • Individualized attention increases likelihood of academic improvement • Dawn. Why did student return for subsequent meetings? De. Biase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

TRY THESE! ü Use a Reflection (“You” statement) Simple = Repeat/Rephrase (Great with angry student! ) Complex = Guess at meaning/feeling; Hypothesis-test ü Explore Ambivalence Make a “Decisional Balance” sheet Have student weigh pros (“good things”) vs. cons (“not so good things) of making a change vs. status quo (not changing) ü Ask An Evocative Question (Elicit “Change Talk”) “What concerns you about _______? ” “What do you think will happen if you don’t change? ” “How would you like for things to be different? ” Dawn De. Biase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.